Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me this time. I hear the phrase ``burdensome State mandates.'' A woman has a C section and gets to stay in the hospital for at least 48 hours. A woman has the right under a health insurance policy to get a mammogram paid for by the insurance company every year. A diabetic has the right to get insulin provided and other blood care paid for by their insurance company. These are the burdensome mandates that we hear talked about on the floor. One of my other friends talked about the heavy hand of government. That heavy hand of government in this case is evidently shared by Republican Governors around the country, because the National Governors Association opposes this bill. Republican and Democratic Governors have looked at this bill and said laws that they have passed that many of our friends on the majority side voted for in State legislatures around the country, laws that protect C sections, mammograms, diabetic care, substance abuse care, mental health care, these laws should not be repealed and thrown aside by the heavy hand of government at the Federal level. That is what this is really about. Amendments that would have addressed these issues, that would have let us discuss these issues on this floor, were prohibited by the rule that we are debating right now. I would suspect that maybe one of the reasons they were prohibited is because Republican attorneys general and Republican Governors around the country would have supported such amendments because they oppose the good work that is undone by this bill. Members should oppose this rule and eventually, after debate, oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who has come up with a very constructive and progressive alternative.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today there is a point of agreements and a strong point of disagreement. There is a point of agreement that health care costs are rising too fast for too many people. There is a point of agreement that the consequences of that price increase is a tremendous burden on small business and a high likelihood that more people will be uninsured. I do not think there is a Member of this body that does not favor finding an intelligent and effective way to reduce health care costs for small business so they can continue to insure the people they do insure and expand and insure more people in the future. Where we disagree is over whether this underlying bill is the right way to do it, and we emphatically believe that it is not. There are four reasons to oppose this bill. The first is that there is a better idea. There is a better way to solve this problem, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will address that issue when our substitute is brought to the floor in a little while. The second reason is that this bill will not result in a reduction of the number of uninsured. To the contrary, it will result in an increase in the number of uninsured people, and here is how. It is estimated by the experts in this field that 8 million people will be shifted from conventional health care policies and plans to association health plans. These 8 million people will, in fact, probably have a lower premium than they do right now for a little while. But when those 8 million people are shifted out of conventional health care plans and they will tend to be younger and healthier people, the people remaining in the conventional health care plans will have to bear more of the costs, and premiums will go up by an estimate of 23 percent. When the premiums go up on the rest of those in the pool, fewer of them will be insured. The experts estimate that while 8 million people will be shifted from regular plans to AHPs, 9 million people approximately will lose their coverage altogether, and the results will be a net loss in the number of insured of 1 million people. So supporting this bill will increase the number of uninsured, not decrease it; and it will increase premiums by 23 percent. The second reason to oppose this bill is that it fails to provide the protection to patients, providers and consumers that good insurance regulation provides. There are simply no effective regulations that will keep an insurance company from going bankrupt and being unable to meet its obligations to its policy holders and pay its claims. We have seen this happen before in multiemployer welfare associations. We will be submitting at the appropriate time a list for the Record of MEWAs that have failed. This is the reason that the National Governors Association, that attorneys general, that commissioners of insurance both Republican and Democrat oppose this bill because the regulation that would protect patients and providers and consumers is not there. The third reason that we should oppose this bill, the final reason, is that the coverage that people have fought for over the years, so that women have a minimum stay in the hospital after they have a C section, so that women have the right to an annual mammogram, so that people with diabetes have the right to insulin or diabetic care, so that people struggling with mental health problems or with substance abuse have the right to have those services covered, those protections which have been supported by Republicans and Democrats in State legislatures around this country are effectively repealed by the underlying bill, a judgment being made in Washington that contravenes the good judgment of Republicans and Democrats around the country. This bill should be opposed. There is a better way that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) will be putting forward with my assistance. This is a bill that will increase the number of uninsured and increase health insurance premiums for small businesses. This is a bill that will leave patients and providers and consumers unprotected if and when insurance companies go bankrupt. Finally, this is a bill that effectively repeals protections for breast cancer screening, colon cancer screening, diabetes care, substance abuse care, and mental health care. It is a bill that should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a Member who understands that this bill will raise premiums by 23 percent and cost 1 million people their coverage.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a person with whom I share an important goal, but have a disagreement on means. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a Member who understands that this bill will increase the number of uninsured by at least 1 million people.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, among those who know the difference between a Cadillac and a lemon are the insurance commissioners of our States who oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of their former members.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the full committee and a fighter for working families throughout his career here. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the argument for this bill rests upon a false choice that I believe would have catastrophic consequences for many Americans. We are told by proponents of the bill that if we are willing to yield the guarantees that they presently enjoy under the law that guarantee them a mammogram, guarantee them care for diabetic illness, guarantee them other rights that they fought and won for, if we make that trade- off, we will get more people health insurance. If that were true, this would be a difficult choice, but it is not true. The net impact of this bill will be to increase the number of uninsured people by nearly 1 million people because the increases in premiums for small business that will occur in businesses that stay in conventional plans will chase more people out of these plans. The experts estimate that these increases will be in excess of 20 percent. So this is a false choice. This bill does not say that if we yield these benefits that people cherish, more people will be insured. The opposite is true. If we were to make the mistake of yielding these cherished benefits, more people would lose their coverage than would gain it. This is a choice not worth making, and it is why the National Governors Association opposes the bill, Republicans and Democrats. And it is why the Attorneys General oppose the bill, Republicans and Democrats. And it is why commissioners of insurance, Republicans and Democrats, oppose the bill. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect the benefits that our constituents earned and deserve and to prevent the increase in the number of uninsured and the increase in health insurance benefit premiums and vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), for yielding me the time. I think the best way to understand the difference between the plan that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I are putting forward and the majority plan is to look at it from the point of view of one of the small business people that we keep hearing referred to over and over again here today. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), often refers to speeches on the floor as posing for holy pictures, and I think that is what is going on here today, where everyone is embracing the small businessman or small businesswoman and saying how much we love them and care about them, and I am sure everyone does. But I think what matters is the impact of these various proposals, what the proposals would have on the small business person. In my State the cost of insuring a family is about $14,000 a year. So let us take a small business person that has 10 employees and is looking at a situation where he or she would have to spend $140,000 to insure each of those employees and their families if the employer was going to bear the whole cost. That is a huge amount of money, but is probably well beyond the ability of that employer to pay for. Under the majority's bill, if we give the majority every benefit of the doubt, if we assume that the majority's bill will work exactly as they say that it will, the most optimistic forecast is the majority's bill will save 13 percent in premiums for that employer. And let us round it up a little bit and give them the benefit of the doubt further and say it will save $2,000 per employee off that $14,000. So what would happen? We would save $20,000, and the employer would be looking at spending $120,000 to insure the families instead of $140,000. That is not going to do it. That is still far more than the person running a machine shop or a small retail store or landscaping business or a delicatessen is ever going to be able to afford. This just is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. Our proposal is very different. It says that in a case of a small business like the one I am hypothesizing here, where you have about 10 employees, and where those employees make less than 200 percent of the poverty level, which in my State for a family of four would be about $40,000, so just about anybody making less than $20 an hour or so would be eligible for this kind of subsidy, that is most people. That is most people. Under our plan that employer, if the employer chose to do this, my friend a minute ago said that the employers were mandated to do this, that is not so. No one is required to insure their employees under this plan, but if the employer chooses to insure his or her employees, what would happen is they would get a credit of $7,000 per employee toward the cost of this health insurance, a 50 percent credit. So the price of the coverage would drop from $140,000 down to $70,000. That is still an awful lot of money. It is an awful lot of money for a person running a small business, but it puts the person in reach of maybe covering that family, particularly if they ask the family to share with copays and deductibles and their own contribution. Now, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the full committee, said, my goodness, the Government will be subsidizing small employers if we do this. It is big government. Well, government already subsidizes health care for large employers, because they permit the large employers to deduct every premium dollar. And that employer is paying at the 36 or 37 percent corporate tax rate, which most of them do. That constitutes a 36 or 37 percent subsidy. So General Motors is getting a nearly 40 percent subsidy, but the person running the delicatessen or the machine shop is not. This evens the playing field. Now, how do we pay for this? Now, the chairman knows that under the rules of the House that it would not be appropriate or germane for us to identify the source of paying for this, because it would take it outside of the committee's jurisdiction. There are different views as to how we could pay for this. I speak only for myself when I say this, but I would note for the record that the cost of tax breaks to companies that outsource their jobs outside of the United States is $100 billion over the next 10 years. So if that machine shop, if its competitor takes all of the jobs and moves them to Malaysia or Mexico, gets a tax break for doing that, which I think is a foolish policy, if we were to repeal that tax break for companies that are outsourcing their jobs out of this country, that would go a long way toward paying for the plan that we are talking about. That to me is a pretty good trade-off. Companies that are sending their jobs overseas would lose a tax break; companies here in America would gain health insurance. Vote yes on the Kind-Andrews substitute.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a person who is a strong voice for the rights of patients and families.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed two votes on July 21, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcalls 401 and 402.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If the principle in this bill were applied to U.S. attorneys across the country, we would have a crime wave like you would not believe. If prosecutors had to be sure they were going to win every time they brought a case, they would bring very few cases. And that is the flaw in this bill. There are four kinds of results when OSHA brings an action. The first is the result when OSHA is right, when they win on every question. And this bill does not affect that situation. The second is the mixed result where OSHA wins some and loses some, where some of the charges that they make are downgraded, others are dismissed, and others are upheld in their entirety. As I read this legislation, Mr. Speaker, in that case, it is indeed possible, perhaps likely, that OSHA would be held responsible for paying the attorneys' fees of the defendant or accused party in that case. The third kind of case OSHA brings is one where OSHA loses on all counts, but the claim was not unreasonable, where they made a judgment call and they thought they were right, but the adjudicator, the court, the decisionmaker made a different decision. Well, in that case, it is obvious under this bill that OSHA would be responsible for the counsel fees of the accused party. The fourth kind of case is the case where OSHA brings a case that is unreasonable, that is arbitrary and capricious. Under present law, under such circumstances, OSHA is responsible for the counsel fees and attorneys' fees of the accused party. Now, our friends on the other side say, well, this has been rarely invoked. I believe they said there are three cases in recent years, in a long time, where this has been invoked. And they draw from that the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that there must be many, many cases where OSHA has done something arbitrary or unreasonable, but not been called on it, not been caught at it. One could draw a very different set of conclusions from that record. It could draw the conclusion that in the vast majority of the cases, even when they lose, their claims are reasonable; and the adjudicator and finder of fact in law has found that although OSHA is wrong, they were not acting in a vindictive or unreasonable way. This is a consistent principle across the board in Federal law. If a Federal agency brings a case that is vindictive or unreasonable or patently unfair, then they are in fact responsible to pay the attorneys' fees of the accused party. But if they bring a case that is just wrong, but not unreasonable, where reasonable people could disagree before the case was brought as to whether it was right or wrong, then they do not have to pay the attorneys' fees, and it is for a very good reason. It is because there are judgment calls that prosecutors have to make, there are judgment calls that enforcing agencies have to make, and we do not want to chill that judgment by saying, we will bring the case if you are sure that you are going to win. I am glad that the Securities and Exchange Commission is not going to be held to this standard, because if every time someone on Wall Street were accused of stock fraud, the SEC had to say, well, are we sure we are going to win before we bring this case, the cases of stock fraud that we have seen would be far more rampant than we have seen in recent years. I am glad that other agencies, the mine safety agency is not held to this standard. You know, the basic question here is whether we want to so chill and corrode the enforcement powers of the agency that we want to wipe them out all together. I just do not think that makes any sense. I think a far more sensible course would be to examine the existing legal provisions as to whether they go far enough, whether they are properly administered; but to make this wholesale change is to say to OSHA, unless you are sure you are going to win, do not bring the case. You know, every lawyer is asked by every client at some phase of the litigation, am I going to win? Clients want to know this. And competent, honest lawyers usually give an answer that says, I am not sure. I can give you the probabilities. I can give you the circumstances under which I think we can win, and the circumstances under which I think we would not win. And a sensible client decides whether to go forward or not. OSHA should have the same degree of discretion. If it abuses that discretion, it should be punished. If it does so on a consistent basis, we should change the law. But I believe there is no record that would demonstrate that conclusion, and I think that this proposal would seriously corrode the ability of this much needed agency to protect the working people of the country. I would urge both sides to cast a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not tribute my friend from New York (Mr. Owens) for his years of advocacy for working people generally and in worker safety specifically. Year after year, month after month, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) has come to this floor and raised these issues with great clarity and passion, and we very much appreciate his contribution in this area. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the efforts of my friend from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) who is the author of the bill. I never thought I would see the day, I must say, Mr. Speaker, to the author where he would propose a bill that could create two jobs for lawyers. On behalf of our profession, I guess we have to express our appreciation. I do want to note my three bases of objections to the bill. The first is it does provide the opportunity for what we might call court packing. It does provide the opportunity by expanding the commission from three members to five, that we would find a fishing expedition for two members that would be more attuned to the ideological predilection of the administration. I do not think either a liberal or conservative administration should have the right to pack the commission. I think expanding to five members runs that risk. Secondly, I am concerned about the undue reliance upon legal training. The language of the bill does not expressly require the appointment of lawyers, but it does indicate that the principal consideration for appointment is legal training or the lack thereof. There are many positions in the Federal administrative service that are very complex that are adjudicatory in nature that do not require formal legal training, and I do not believe that these positions should either. I would note for the record that none of the nonlawyers appointed to this commission in its history have been appointed by Democratic administrations. All of the nonlawyers appointed, to my knowledge, have been appointed by Republican administrations. So my objection is not partisan or ideological. I think that the door should be wide open for people of all backgrounds and ability to serve on the commission provided they are qualified. My third objection has to do with what appears to be a minor provision, but could be a major provision. It appears that the language would permit two members of the commission, now it is expanded to five, only two members of the commission to transact business on behalf of the commission. I do not know of really any other decisionmaking body in the Federal structure where a minority of the members can make an affirmative decision. I know of institutions where a minority can veto a decision, bit I am not familiar with a situation where two members out of five could in fact act on behalf of the commission. I have a concern about that as well. So for these reasons I would urge opposition to the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. What sounds like a very small change in the rules could have very large and unwelcome consequences. The way the law works now, if an OSHA inspector noticed the trench that the gentleman from New York just made reference to and gave that employer a notice that the trench needed to be properly put together so it would not cave in, under present law the employer has more than 2 weeks, 15 days, to decide whether to contest that citation. And if the employer fails to contest the citation, the law presumes that the violation ought to stand and there is corrective action taken to try to protect the worker. Now, sometimes employers do have surprises or accidents or situations beyond their control and they mean to object to the citation, but they fail to do so. They fail to file the paper on time, or they have some other surprise or circumstance. The law, as the gentleman from New York said, already provides for that circumstance. On a case-by-case basis, OSHA is able to say there are special circumstances which justify missing the 15-day deadline. In the law, he or she who has the burden of proof loses. What this bill does is to shift the burden of proof to OSHA to prove that the 15-day deadline was somehow unreasonable, instead of properly vesting the burden on the employer to show that there was an accident or a surprise that made them fail to hit the 15-day deadline. There is a reason that this deadline is so short. It is because the circumstances that give rise to the violations put people's lives and health at risk. We should not shift this burden. We should not approve this bill. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the FY06 Transportation, Treasury, HOD, Judiciary, and District of Columbia Appropriations Act today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to the proposed Runway 17-35 expansion at the Philadelphia International Airport. Over the past several months, I have strongly urged the FAA to investigate and pursue the construction of a new parallel runway, rather than continuing with its endorsement of Build Alternative 1, which is an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars. The information presented in the final Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, indicates that there will be minimal gains in airport efficiency with the extension of Runway 17-35. The projected average delay per operation in 2007 is 15.3 minutes under the No-Action Alternative. The EIS indicated that Alternative 1 would cost the taxpayers approximately $36 million, yet would only result in an 84- second delay reduction. While this alternative purports a slightly greater reduction in the 2015 projected delays, the EIS indicated only a 6.5-minute delay reduction, which is less than the 7.5-minute delay reduction that was projected in the Draft EIS, DEIS. I think it would be a much better use of taxpayer funds to evaluate the potential installation of a new parallel runway rather than extending Runway 17- 35; it makes no sense to spend $36 million with no real ensuing benefits. The FAA still has not released the underlying data used to calculate projected delay reductions. It greatly concerns me that the FAA has indicated that it does not have data indicating what percentage of delays at the Philadelphia International Airport are a direct result of airport runway problems, as opposed to other causes. Common sense would indicate that this information is necessary in order to determine that the proposed runway extension would be effective in increasing airport efficiency, particularly when the projected delay reduction achieved by this project was decreased by more than 13 percent between the time the DEIS was issued on October 15, 2004, and the issuance of the EIS on March 11, 2005. The Record of Decision, ROD, indicates that Alternative 1 will have no significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities, which defies logic. The proposed runway extension would allow more and larger aircraft to utilize the runway, and common sense dictates that this would result in a substantial appreciation in noise levels for the southern New Jersey communities within the flight paths and directly across the Delaware River from the Philadelphia International Airport. Again, I strongly urge the FAA to explore a parallel runway option so that all interested parties can evaluate the relevant facts and form a judgment on the potential benefit a new parallel runway would have to the entire Philadelphia region.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the first graduating class of the Camden Academy Charter High School. The high school grew out of Camden's Promise Charter School, which opened its doors in September of 1998. From the beginning, Camden Academy Charter School has provided a safe environment for the children of Camden. The students here are not just presented with a foundation in academics, but also discover how their education translates into opportunities outside the classroom. The students participate in summer immersion, job shadowing, and even internships with local companies. These students have truly earned their diplomas. I commend them for their dedication and hard work, and hope that their education will not end here. Education is a lifelong goal, one that serves to the betterment of the individual, and of society. I ask them to read the newspaper; read a novel; write poetry; study current events; talk to friends and family about the issues of the day. Their graduation today is a starting point from which they can grow and learn, and I wish these students all the best in their future endeavors. The following are the 2005 graduates from the Camden Academy Charter High School: Aaron Adams, Kristen Alpheus, Devon Alston, Jamellah Best, Diana Borges, Tyesha Brantley, Domonic Busbee, Troy Butler, Edwin Caraballo, TieQuann Carver, Jesse Coltrane, Alexis Cooper, Michael Cropper, Bianca Cox, Juan Cruz, Aramis Cruz, Letitia Curry, Khalil Davis, Julissa DeCasanova, Yesenia DeCasanova, Christopher Dickerson, Marilynn Ferguson, Rashon Fisher, Sheila Gabriel, and Tajah Gamble. Abraham Gonzalez, Adrian Graham, DeVaughn Hailey, LaToya Hairston, Marcus Harris, Theresa Holmes, Michael Hopkins, William Hughes III, Hope Ibeneche, Nashid Ibn-EI, Daniel Irizarry, Brittany Johnson, Damian Johnson, Nigel Jones, Erving Jones, Kris Keaton, Monique Kinard, Keyana Kirkland, Antonia Maldonado, Jorge Maldonado, KiaMarae Mathes, Steven McDonald, Jessica Medina, Jevon Miles, and Tabron Miles. Naeemah Mitchell-EI, Rafael Montanez, Ebony Mosley, Chanell Moye, Shardae Norwood, Saunier O'Neill, Jeremy Ortiz, Charles Parrish, India Powe, Dianna Pujols, Veda Quann, Quameer Reddick-Parker, April Reid- Bey, Christopher Rivera, Daniella Rivera, Jeremy Robinson, Samuel Rodriguez, LaTisha Rodriguez, Cheryl Ross, Kabria Satterwhite, Devin Seamon, Phillip Smalls, Dareese Smith, Akacia Spearman, and Yaniece Spencer. Vaughn Spicer, Genice Steward, Troy Still, Steven Taylor Jr., Mercy Torres, Gina Torres, Jemaine Underdue, Fashionette Underdue, Alexander Vargas, Jha-Nai Wagner, Tangier Washington, Brittney Webb, Rasheen Webb, Gabrielle Williams, Chanteera Wilson, Lateema Yellock, and Tiffany Young.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed votes on June 24th, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 318, 319 and 320. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 308, 313, 315, 317 and 321.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 180 speaks to the heart of how we as a nation value the lives of each and every one of our firefighters. This resolution is a wake-up call to make firefighter safety a national priority. It is a wake-up call to remind us that we need to do more to prevent and reduce firefighter fatalities and injuries. It begins today, where fire departments across the country are participating in ``stand down.'' Today, at participating departments, all non-emergency activities are suspended and firefighters instead will focus only on firefighter safety. Firefighters are so used to putting their lives at risk to save others that their health and well-being is often neglected. Today we hope to begin a new trend where firefighter safety becomes a top priority for every firefighter, whether volunteer or paid, rural or urban, young or old. The safety and health of firefighters has never been a more important issue. Firefighters now have more responsibilities with the increased focus on homeland security and hazard response. We rely on them to protect us from harm while we are at home, at work, and everywhere in between. Regrettably, more than 58 firefighters have died this year, a number that far exceeds the annual pace. This is especially disturbing because most, if not all, of these deaths are preventable. There are measures to be taken to reduce the number of fatalities--measures that are described in this resolution. These firefighters don't have to die. The number of deaths can be reduced, but we have to do more. Not only can we ill-afford to lose over 100 firefighters a year, but we cannot afford to lose any. I fully support the goals of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the United States Fire Administration with respect to firefighter safety. I truly believe that at the end of the day, every firefighter must go home.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this Nation and the great State of New Jersey has lost one of its foremost public servants. Congressman Peter Rodino was a man who truly honored the law, and when the country called on him in time of crisis, Mr. Rodino rose to greatness. I will always remember Peter Rodino for faithfully honoring the values that brought him to prominence in our Nation's history: honesty, humility, patience, and service. Peter Rodino represented the district of New Jersey in which he lived his whole life. Born in Newark, he worked his way through law school and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1941. He was awarded the Bronze Star for valor during World War II. He continued to serve his country in the House, elected to the 81st Congress in 1949. He served for 40 years, retiring in 1989, and turning his seat over to my friend, the Honorable Donald Payne. Most of us will remember Peter Rodino for his superb leadership of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Impeachment Hearings. His patient and deliberative style gave the proceedings real credibility, and helped to hold the country together at a time of great upheaval. His reverence to the Constitution ensured that the painful and difficult hearings proceeded as our forefathers had envisioned. Peter Rodino was called upon by his country in time of crisis, and he rose to the challenge. Peter Rodino will be sorely missed. In an age of bitter partisanship, Mr. Rodino was a calming voice. He guided the country through one of its darkest periods in recent history, and did so with grace and humility. Mr. Rodino's legacy of service to his country and his fellow man will surely be remembered for years to come.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I missed nine votes on June 17th, 2005 because I was attending my daughter's graduation from elementary school. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos. 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 and 281. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 279, 280 and 282.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Rabbi Richard A. Levine and to honor his years of commitment to education and tolerance in our community. Rabbi Levine has worked hard for the Jewish community over the past 40 years. He was the first New Jersey Rabbi ever to serve as President of the Greater Philadelphia Board of Rabbis. He has served as a member of the board and president for countless Jewish organizations in the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware area. Locally, Rabbi Levine has been committed to helping children and teenagers in South Jersey. He is a very active participant in many programs of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. In the greater community he has chaired a number of regional councils or committees, such as Operation Head Start, which is dedicated to the education of our youth. Rabbi Levine is a regular speaker at regional high schools, teaching students a myriad of topics including interpersonal relationships and family life. Leading over 30 tours since 1955 to Israel, Rabbi Levine has managed to educate new and old generations alike about the country. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to honor Rabbi Richard Levine today. He has certainly accomplished much for our community in the past 40 years, and I know Adath Emanu-El will miss him dearly. I thank him for his dedicated community service and wish Rabbi Richard Levine all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has proffered. I commend the gentleman from Illinois for being the original author of the amendment, and I am proud to be his cosponsor. The reason we need this amendment is that a quantity of nuclear materials that could be put into a suitcase and made into a nuclear weapon and detonated in Times Square or in some other major place in the United States or around the world could be legally obscured from international inspection under the present protocol. This inspection protocol was written at a time when nuclear weapons were only reusable on warheads or submarines. It ignored the deadly new technology that can compress the size of the weapons, but not their deadliness. The fact of the matter is that no quantity of uranium or plutonium that could be used for weapon purposes is too small for inspection. Those who would deem it worthy of using these quantities are more dangerous with smaller amounts. So the idea here is that the international inspection regime be geared to the realities of the present risk. It is a very good idea. I would urge Members on both sides to support it so we can preclude the awful day when a very small amount of weapons material makes a very big and horrible difference for innocent people in our country or innocent people around the world. I would urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of the amendment.